Written by David Brin, 1985. Re-released for the lame movie adaptation, 1997.

No zombies in this one.

Just a man, in his 30s, trying to surviving in post-apocolyptic Oregon. The once-noble and powerful State has reverted to a terrifying and dangerous territory, and its once united people turned into dangerous nomads and villagers, each with their own agenda of survival.

The man is Gordon. (Last name, I can't remember.) After having his supplies stolen, Gordon comes upon an abandoned postal jeep. A dead letter carrier sits inside, with a leather jacket, a scintillator... and a bag of mail.

Intending to disguise himself as a mailman, going from village to village to exchange the decades-old letters for food, Gordon begins a journey that will encompass all of Oregon...

And bring hope back to a dying people.

Great book. Read it now. What I've revealed is nothing compared to the plot. Great inspiration for life after a PAW, I think.

See you around, HK. And remember folks: victory is surviving to watch another sunrise.

My female avatar is Saeko Busujima from High School Of The Dead. I'm a dude.

I just finished reading The Postman, so I looked up this thread and decided to throw my $.02 into the mix here. SPOILERS ARE PRESENT!

First, the novel is almost NOTHING like the movie. The experience of one has no bearing on the other.

I enjoyed Gordan much more than Kevin Costner's character, mostly because it doesn't start out as a scam. Gordan dons the clothing simply because he needs warmer clothes. He grabs the mail bag because his own backpack was stolen, so he needed something to carry gear in. In all, you have a much more likeable character who questions his lies, as they develope, internally.

The major issue, at least for me, is the idea that survivalists bring down the US Government. This is actually the one point where I like the movie's version better. A militia defeating the military, while unlikely, is more plausible for toppling the government than a group of survivalists.

David Brin has apparently acknowleged that the book is somewhat anti-survivalist. I have actually sent him an email as of last night to find out why he chose suvivalists as an antagonist.

One thing I like to point out though, is that the book seems to be pretty accurate about the struggles of life in the PAW. Mistrust by many towns, acceptance by others, and bizarre rituals to become a permenant resident at others, all could be a very real part of life in the PAW, especially as time rolls onward.

Taking place 16 years after TEOTWAWKI, it's an interesting study if nothing else. While I enjoyed the book, I strongly disagreed with several political-esque comments the author makes. However, I still feel I should recommend the book. If you haven't read it, you should!

Yeah, I know it's a double post, but I thought I should have a seperate post for this thread.

After reading The Postman, I actually contacted David Brin to find out why survivalists were the antagonist of his book, versus some other group. Here's is my email to him:

Our Great and Mighty Tomcat wrote: I just started reading your novel, The Postman last night, and so far I have found it much more enjoyable than the film. One thing I was most surprised about in your book was that the Holnists were survivalists, instead of a militia as in the movie. After reading an article about the book, I learned that you said that the book was, to an extent, an anti-survivalist book.

My question is simply why? What about the survivalist movement concerned you or motivated to use them as an antagonist of that magnitude? I understand that the militia idea used in the film was pretty non-existent in 1985, but I am curious as to your reasons for making this novel an anti-survivalist work.

I eagerly await your response.

Sincerely,
Our Great and Mighty Tomcat

Well, after some time, I had really just given up on getting a response, but then last night, while I was watching King Kong apparently, our villian responded!

David Brin wrote:Thanks for your thoughtful and interesting message.
It truly is gratifying when people write, and I always
try to answer.

I certainly appreciate the encouragement.

I will append a general update below, but as for the
survivalist issue, I don't think you may be recalling
very well the NASTY emotional thread that underlay a
lot of that movement, in the 80s. The tone was very
much the way I protrayed it, leading eventually to the
rationalizations of Timothy McVeigh.

This is NOT to say that survival training and
preparedness are twisted, in themselves! I comsider
myself to be adefinite member of that side of it, a
real boy scout... which is why I was able to separate
the two meanings of "militia". Two meanings that are
real opposites.

So basically, the term "survivalist" used in the book was simply the closest term in 1985 to the militia extremists we currently have today. Also, Brin appears to be a bit of a survivalist in his own right. Hence forth, I shall definately be cutting him some slack

I read the book after I saw the movie... To tell the truth, I actually preferred the movie, just because (to me) it "flowed" better. That, and I'm a sucker for Kevin Costner movies. FYI, Waterworld kicks ass for a PAW flik too! Not to mention Tom Petty's guest appearance as the mayor.....

Not to say I didn't like the book, of course. I loved the book. It's definately worth reading.

Tomcat... thank you for emailing the author. I keep forgetting that's always an option, and I keep forgetting that authors do respond to fan mail. I didn't think Postman was anti-survivalist at all, seeing as how most of the characters sorta... fit my mental image of PAW survivors. 19th century mindset, 21st century tech.

Huh.

Not to mention Tom Petty's guest appearance as the mayor.....

There was some scuttlebutt that the mayor was supposed to be Ringo Starr, as an inside joke of sorts, but he couldn't make it to the set.

See you around, HK. And remember folks: victory is surviving to watch another sunrise.

My female avatar is Saeko Busujima from High School Of The Dead. I'm a dude.

I am in the process of reading the book, and I just watched the movie.

I have to agree. The movie and the book are separate stories of each other, but I enjoyed the movie, and am still enjoying the book.

I think that Kevin Cosner's character might be quite close to the book version of Gordon, we simply never 'hear' his thoughts in the movie. It is obvious that he does not start out wanting to fight, and feels bad when his actions cause bad things to happen.

All in all, I like the PAW setting, both in the movie and the book, though there are things in the book that I find... questionable.
Cyclops for one.

I also note that the book is dated slightly, but still highly enjoyable.

I knew some people who read it and said it was quite good. But he movie spoiled me for any of David Brin's books, sadly. Then I picked up a copy of the bood Kiln People that he wrote about six years ago. Very well done book with an interesting premise.

I finally did pick this up a little over a month ago and finished reading it while I was flying back from Arizona last month. I have to say that while I liked the movie, I enjoyed the book much more. In fact by the time I had finished reading it I found myself wishing that Brin had written a sequel.

Spoilers to come.........

I found the character of Gordon to be much more likeable in the book. I also enjoyed how in the book Gordon is the one who established the communication between the towns instead of the way it was done in the movie. I thought the idea of the laser satellites melting the radio towers and the EMP blast were interesting explanations for why everyone was still so isolated 16 years later. Only thing I really didn't really like(other then the "survivalist" thing which Tom helped sort out) was the whole "augment" soldiers part at the end.

Overall I thought it was a great read and a much better story then what the movie offered and would recommend it to friends in the furture.

I felt the book reeked of contrived 80's SciFi. The EMP was okay since it really wasn't the all powerful now nothing ever works EMP but just the catalyst for a cascading failure. That was evidenced in the electronics that would work once they got batteries. The super soldier concept was fun but ultimately was just a Deux Ex Machina. The idea that people would interfere with the government and causing the ultimate downfall to me was the best twist.

Gregoriev wrote:I'm not shooting you down for stupidity, but this is like saying "In case of zombies I'll just build my own rocket to mars! blastoff wooohooo!!!! no more zombie! lolz!"

I've only seen the movie. I've enjoyed that greatly and found it a great source of inspiration and it made me think a lot about what it takes to build/rebuild a society. I'm thinking of using in when teaching social science, but kids today are so fragile so I'll probably get in trouble for it...

The movie is a bit slow compared to normal american movies, but hey I'm used to german, swedish and french movies so I don't mind.

I didn't know it was based on a novel and I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy here in Sweden, alltough I doubt I'll have any succes.

spaceman wrote:Overall, I liked this book. It had some real shiny moments, and others that weren't so shiny. At about 30 pages from the end is where I was really turned off though. (There may be spoilers below...)
I agree. That's the part I hate - especially the two genetic goons fist-fighting. A-whaaat?! Not my thing.

I couldn't agree more. The whole "augment" story-line seemed entirely contrived and tacked on at the last minute to give the novel a more tradition sci-fi feel (as opposed to a more purely PAW theme). I did not like that business it all. It almost ruined the entire read for me. In the end, I could not condemn the whole novel for the rubbish ending.

i saw the movie the other day & i had heard bad things about it, so going in i had low standards but i must say i kinda liked it. il keep my eye out for the book so i can read it.

Many have died, last week, on these streets. In the basement of this building, you will find them. I have given them the last rites, now, you do what you will. You are stronger than us... But soon, I think they be stronger than you. When the dead walk, señores, we must stop the killing... or lose the war. -Dawn of the Dead

Never saw the movie. Loved the book.... until the end. The end was lame. But I still recomend reading it.

What has surprised me is how many people read the book and thought it was antisurvivalist/militia and mistook the fall of the government to be the fault of the militias. As I recall, the industrial world had already been ravaged by biological warfare agents that had been released in 3rd world countries and spread. I remember it detailing all sorts of disasters that tore civilization apart, and then just when it looked like civilization might survive in North America, a single, particular militia movement was just the final straw that helped drag North America under. It never really portrayed that particular militia movement openly taking on the federal government or the military either. Small groups following similar ideologies started taking over some areas at the local level instead of a big coordinated conflict.

I liked how it stated that most militias and surivivalists fought tooth and claw to help civilization stay together. It was just the more viscious ones that survived and made the term "survivalist" something to be feared.

Did anyone else catch this in the book? Or known other people that missed this when they read it? I found it made a big difference in how believable some people found it and how they viewed the authors treatment on survivalists/militias.

"Seriously the most dangerous thing you are likely to do is to put salt on a Big Mac right before you eat it and to climb into your car."
--Raptor

RoneKiln wrote:Did anyone else catch this in the book? Or known other people that missed this when they read it? I found it made a big difference in how believable some people found it and how they viewed the authors treatment on survivalists/militias.

SPOILERS
A lot of the militia members who prevented the government from establishing control weren't normal people; they were genetically modified "super soldiers". That's why the militias were so tough.

I didn't read it as an anti-survivalist book at all. The Holnists (bad militia) were clearly evil, but that was because their senior members were extremely changed from the experiments to make them superior soldiers. One of them even said something along the lines that "They couldn't shut down; they needed to fight". It was just a different lens through which to examine the breakdown of civilization with lots of sci-fi. I was entertained.